Tag Archives: Obama

Time’s Joe Klein Unhinged on Mosque: Gingrich a ‘Demented, Anger-Infused Doofus’ – and a ‘Jerk’ Too

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Opposition to building a mosque near Ground Zero really sent Time’s Joe Klein into a tirade. In a Monday night post on the magazine’s “ Swampland” blog , Klein began: “Shame on all those Republicans salivating over President Obama’s support for the Cordoba Islamic Center…” Then he got personal, condemning “slimeball politics” has he slimed Newt Gingrich: “This is slimeball politics, pure and simple, except for when it descends into outright religious bigotry – which seems to be what happens every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth.” Klein disparaged Gingrich as a “demented, anger-infused doofus” – all before proving, as if that weren’t already established, he didn’t care about offering any reason as he simply trashed Gingrich as “a jerk.” And liberals say talk radio and the Fox News Channel are lowering the level of political discourse. The first paragraph of “ The Soft Bigotry of Soft Bigotry ,” Klein’s August 16 post: Shame on all those Republicans salivating over President Obama’s support for the Cordoba Islamic Center, which is to be built several blocks away from Ground Zero in New York. Despite all the high-minded words about “sensitivity” for the families of the victims, this is slimeball politics, pure and simple, except for when it descends into outright religious bigotry–which seems to be what happens every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth. Does that demented, anger-infused doofus actually believe that putting the mosque near Ground Zero is the equivalent of putting a swastika next to the Holocaust Museum? Does he really want to slander the tens of thousands of hard-working, freedom-loving, fiercely entrepreneurial Muslims living in this country? I mean, what a jerk.

Originally posted here:
Time’s Joe Klein Unhinged on Mosque: Gingrich a ‘Demented, Anger-Infused Doofus’ – and a ‘Jerk’ Too

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

ZBB BS: WSJ Editorial Scoops Beat Journalists on Financial Condition of Obama-Visited Company

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Here’s yet another example illustrating why one must treat the editorials at the Wall Street Journal as a primary source of hard news during Democratic presidential administrations. On Monday, President Obama visited ZBB Energy Corp, a maker of high-tech batteries in Menominee, Wisconsin. Helene Cooper at the New York Times , where a larger version of the picture at the right appeared, reported that “The company received a $1.3 million federal stimulus loan, which officials said would triple its manufacturing capacity and could lead to 80 new jobs.” Note the word “could.” At least the Times mentioned the existence of ZBB’s stimulus loan. In three brief reports mentioning the company during the past week, the Associated Press didn’t even do that. The WSJ’s intrepid editorialists did everyone else’s work for them and peeked behind the curtain at ZBB. It is not pretty: Uncle Sam, Venture Capitalist Meet the battery company that Obama visited yesterday. President Obama kicked off a five-state campaign swing yesterday with a stop at a “clean energy” plant in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. As it happens, Mr. Obama couldn’t have chosen a better company to demonstrate the risks that taxpayers are taking with their billions in green stimulus investment. … Mr. Obama praised it for “pointing the country toward a brighter economic future,” but we’ll let readers decide if they’d write the same checks if they were investing their own money. ZBB has been around for more than a decade, developing batteries and equipment to store energy from wind turbines and solar cells. … last January, when the Department of Energy announced $2.3 billion in “clean energy manufacturing tax credits,” ZBB was one of 183 recipients—collecting $14 million. We wonder who in government looked at ZBB’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Since going public in June of 2007, ZBB has been hemorrhaging money. The firm lost $4.9 million in fiscal 2008 and $5.5 million in fiscal 2009. In its most recent filing, in May, it said it had lost $6.9 million for the first nine months of its current fiscal year. It explained it had a “cumulative deficit” of $44.1 million and informed shareholders that it “anticipates incurring continuing losses.” It acknowledged that its ability to continue as a “going concern” was predicated on its ability to drum up additional funds. … Meanwhile, a review by the company’s audit committee last fall discovered that ZBB’s former CEO had been wrongly compensated as both an employee and an independent contractor, and that the company had failed to withhold his proper taxes. He stepped down, and the management team was reshuffled. ZBB was also forced to restate its financial results after a separate audit committee review found the company had recognized revenue from a contract in the wrong quarter. The company also acknowledged in its May filing that the 72,000 square foot manufacturing facility it bought in 2006 is “currently producing at less than 10% of its expected capacity.” That means it can’t currently access the $14 million in federal tax credits, which were supposed to help with equipment for a new facility. Meanwhile, private investors have soured on some energy-storage companies. ZBB’s initial public offering was priced at $6 a share in 2007, and it closed yesterday at 70 cents. A visit to the company’s quarterly income statements at NASDAQ.com reveals that sales during the four quarters that ended on March 31 were less than $2 million; the revenue line during the most recently reported quarter was a whopping $189,000. During that time, the company lost over $8 million. During the four years ended June 30, 2009 , ZBB burned through well over $20 million. You have to wonder how badly stimulus efforts such as these are going if a company in ZBB’s condition is considered worthy of a campaign stop. How bad are the situations at the ones that didn’t make the cut? The Journal gives a partial excuse to the White House press corps for not doing its work: “It has been dragged to so many of these energy events that it has lost interest in looking at the companies it visits.” Sorry, I’m not as forgiving. Allowing yourself to get scooped by a bunch of guys sitting in New York offices demonstrates how inexcusably lazy establishment press beat reporters following the president have become. That laziness would also appear to be influenced by the likelihood that if they really did their job, they’d have to report unpleasant things about their guy in the White House and the mostly accomplishment-free results of “clean energy” efforts thus far. You’ll know that they don’t even care about being scooped if, as I expect, the WSJ’s editorial is the first and last you’ll see of ZBB’s BS in the establishment press. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

More here:
ZBB BS: WSJ Editorial Scoops Beat Journalists on Financial Condition of Obama-Visited Company

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Open Thread: ‘Will Barack Obama Be a One-term President?’

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

“Yes, he might last that long,” Politico’s Roger Simon states in response to his own question. Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.) I am not saying Obama is not smart; he is as smart as a whip. I am just saying he does not understand what savvy first-term presidents need to understand: You have to stay on message, follow the polls, listen to your advisers (who are writing the message and taking the polls) and realize that when it comes to doing what is right versus doing what is expedient, you do what is expedient so that you can get reelected and do what is right in the second term. If at all possible. And it will help your legacy. And not endanger the election of others in your party. And not hurt the brand. Or upset people too much. Do you concur with that assessment, or is Simon being too cynical? Remember to give some examples to back up your point.

See the original post:
Open Thread: ‘Will Barack Obama Be a One-term President?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Author Richard Epstein Renounces Gray Lady: ‘She’s Become a Bit…of a Slut’

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Richard Epstein disowned the New York Times today. ” Adios, Gray Lady ,” he proclaimed at the Weekly Standard’s website. “She’s become a bit – perhaps more than a bit – of a slut,” Epstein claimed, “whoring after youth through pretending to be with-it.” Epstein, a prominent libertarian author and law school professor, hysterically decried the Times’s ongoing descent into pomposity and cultural irrelevance. And Epstein would know – he claims he’s been a subscriber for 50 years. Chief among Epstein’s grievances was the contents of the Times’s opinion pages. Though he praised David Brooks, longtime token conservative of the Times’s commentators (and by many measures hardly a conservative at all), as not being “locked into a Pavlovian political response,” Epstein claimed that “I find no need to read any of the Times’s regular columnists.” Every so often I check to remind myself that Maureen Dowd isn’t amusing, though she is an improvement, I suppose, over the termagantial Anna Quindlen, whom I used to read with the trepidation of a drunken husband mounting the stairs knowing his wife awaits with a rolling pin. I’d sooner read the fine print in my insurance policies than the paper’s perfectly predictable editorials. Laughter, an elegant phrase, a surprising sentiment-the New York Times op-ed and editorial pages are the last place to look for any of these things…. I could go on about the artificial rage of Frank Rich-the liberals’ Glenn Beck-or the forced gaiety of “Sunday Styles,” but the main feeling I have as I rise from having wasted an hour or so with the Sunday New York Times is of what wretched shape the country is in if it is engaged in such boringly trivial pursuits, elevating to eminence such dim cultural and political figures, writing so muddledly about ostensibly significant subjects. Ouch. Epstein’s grievances, though, went far beyond the paper’s columnists, to other, less ostensibly political sections. I sometimes glimpse the Arts section to see which wrong people are being praised or have been awarded large cash prizes or recognized for years of mediocre achievement by election to the American Academy of Arts & Letters. Arts, of course, are no longer quite The Arts, at least in the New York Times, which features hard rock and rap music and video games and graphic novels under the rubric The Arts. Only the photographs of dancers lend an aesthetic dimension to the shabby section. I lift the Sunday New York Times from the hallway outside our apartment with a heart twice the weight of the hefty paper itself. From it I extract the Book Review, the magazine, “Sunday Styles,” the “Week in Review.” For decades now the New York Times Book Review has been devoted to reinforcing received (and mostly wrong) literary opinions and doing so in impressively undistinguished prose. The New York Times Magazine has always been dull, but earlier it erred on the side of seriousness. Now it is dull on the side of ersatz hipness. The other Sunday I put myself through a long article on the dangers of leaving a record of one’s minor misdeeds on the Internet. The article’s last sentence instructed that “we need to learn new forms of empathy, new ways of defining ourselves without reference to what others say about us and new ways of forgiving one another for the digital trails that will follow us forever.” Yes, I thought, and wet birds never fly at night. Epstein ends his jeremiad with a simple request: “Cancel my subscription, please.”

Link:
Author Richard Epstein Renounces Gray Lady: ‘She’s Become a Bit…of a Slut’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Monday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to defend President Obama’s Friday statement defending the planned mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Brzezinski cooed that the President ” did the right thing by saying what he said ” and Scarborough labeled the remark “uncontroversial” and later stated the controversy over the mosque was a ” wedge issue ” . As NewsBusters’ Noel Shepard reported , the former Florida congressman turned MSNBC anchor blasted Newt Gingrich for his barrage against the President for his defense of the mosque. Earlier in the broadcast, just after the top of the 7 am Eastern hour, Brzezinski related her personal anecdote about discussing the issue over her recent vacation, and went right into her “right thing” defense of the President’s stance. Scarborough replied to this by berating Gingrich, in an early preview of his later attack: SCARBOROUGH: David Ignatius, talking about the mosque on ‘This Week’- BRZEZINSKI: Actually, that’s a fascinating issue. We talked about it over the weekend, and, certainly, on vacation, it was much the dinner table conversation. I thought the President actually did the right thing by saying what he said , but- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: The President’s getting pounded. I ‘ve got a quote I’m going to read in a little bit when David’s here- from Newt Gingrich, a guy I know, a guy I worked with, a guy who I always considered to be one of the brighter guys – BRZEZINSKI: Yeah- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: But, my gosh, this quote is stunning, and I would say, stunning and irresponsible and – BRZEZINSKI:  It’s over the top . SCARBOROUGH: He’s not alone. Minutes later, the two MSNBC anchors brought on Ignatius to discuss the controversy. Scarborough read one of Gingrich’s attacks on Obama, and included his “non-controversial” label of the President’s statement on the mosque, as he asked the editor to respond to the former House Speaker. When Ignatius expressed his disagreement with this label, the former congressman erupted with a sharp retort. The editor replied with liberal platitude about how the Republicans needed to take care, as the world was watching: SCARBOROUGH: Let me read you what Newt Gingrich said and you tell me what kind of impact this has across the globe: a former speaker, somebody whose name many people across the world know. Gingrich said this, according to The New York Times- quote, ‘There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and inaccurate.’ Do you care to respond about the level of heat that this non-controversial statement that the President said on Friday night has generated? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, you couldn’t really call it a non-controversial statement because- here we are still talking about it , but I do think that kind of- SCARBOROUGH: Well, no, no, no- I’m just saying, though- I mean, David, he said this, though: Muslims have a right to worship as they choose . IGNATIUS: Yup. I understand- BRZEZINSKI: It shouldn’t be controversial .              SCARBOROUGH: It should not be – IGNATIUS: I understand. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. I’m sorry- go ahead. We have a delay. IGNATIUS: You know, it seems to me that this rhetoric about pandering to radical Muslims really is inappropriate. I do think Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, have to be careful when they speak to the world about us, about- and by that, I mean our political debate . The Washington Post editor went on to echo his earlier praise of the President’s stance on Sunday’s This Week on ABC . As he lauded Obama, Brzezinski took the time to express her agreement with him: IGNATIUS: What I found striking about the President’s comments on Friday night was he knew that this was going to be unpopular. The polls showing two-thirds of Americans disagreed with the essence of what he was about to say were already out. If you look carefully at the Friday night statement, he said we have to be sensitive to the feelings of people in lower Manhattan. This is hallowed ground, but even so, this is America, and we have to live by America’s rules, and he stated- I thought, the rules that we live under here, in terms of freedom- you buy a piece of property, you have a right to put up a mosque or whatever you want on it. And I thought it was, in that sense, a courageous statement by the President – BRZEZINSKI: Mmhmm- me too – IGNATIUS: It was a kind of leadership, frankly, I’d like to see more from him. I’d like to see more of that, not less. I was a little troubled by all of the nuance back-in filling that followed the next day, but I think it’s okay for our president to say things that people disagree with. He just needs to continue the dialogue. He needs to explain to Americans, this is the kind of country we are . He’s got a lot of support; he’s got Mayor Bloomberg; he’s got- you know, many of the prominent legislators up there who are going to stand behind him- not Peter King, maybe, but an awful lot of other people. So I didn’t think it was- you know, Obama’s mistake, and I think the attacks on him really paint us in a bad light around the world- I have to say that. Later in the hour, Scarborough actually went on the offense against not only Gingrich and the opponents of the NYC mosque in general, but also President Obama himself for his recent “demagoguing” of the Social Security issue. His co-anchor, however, couldn’t help herself to continue her praise of the executive: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from August 14, 2010 weekly address): Some Republicans leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They are pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen, not while I’m president. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble what you got with Social Security on Wall Street, because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for- all you’ve earned- at risk. SCARBOROUGH: Oh, boy (laughs). BRZEZINSKI: I’m glad. SCARBOROUGH: Not exactly a weekend for political courage on either side . BRZEZINSKI: Oh, come on! SCARBOROUGH: You have the Republicans demagoguing the mosque issue and you’ve got Barack Obama demagoguing Social Security . It’s almost like- BRZEZINSKI: What!? He’s protecting us. It’s nice . SCARBOROUGH: Yeah- protect us, please, from those bad Republicans who want to destroy Social Security! You know, Mark Halperin and I have been having this conversation for some time. And I said, will Barack Obama really allow the Democrats to demagogue on Social Security, even though he says he wants to save it? And he said- well, he will until after the election, and then it will come to Republicans. Saturday, he sent me a press release and as I- whoops! Okay, I guess he is kind of jumping into the water himself- BRZEZINSKI: Well- SCARBOROUGH: This is the oldest, most cynical trick in the book – BRZEZINSKI: You are cynical. SCARBOROUGH: Especially when Social Security is dying. Social Security is running out of money, along with Medicare. Every economist that’s not a political hack will tell you the entitlements pose the greatest long-term economic risk to us, and Barack Obama decided to use his radio address this weekend to demagogue Social Security. It is shameless. It is shameless, every bit as shameless domestically- because this is the big issue- as Republicans demagoguing the mosque is in foreign affairs . BRZEZINSKI: So cynical! Over an hour later, near the end of the 8 am Eastern hour, as the two anchors discussed the mosque, among other issues, with Matt Lewis of Politics Daily and Republican political advisor Mark McKinnon, Scarborough used his “wedge issue” label to describe the controversy and referenced his earlier attack on both Obama and Gingrich: SCARBOROUGH [to Lewis]: Hey, Matt, this morning, we- I attacked Republicans for demagoguing the mosque issue- so I’ll get hate e-mails all day from right-wing nuts. And then, I attacked Democrats for attacking Social Security shamelessly, like they do, so I’ll get hate e-mails from left-wing nuts all day . When you posted a blog- as a conservative taking on both sides- what was the response? MATT LEWIS: Well- you know, the funny thing, Joe, is that both sides think that I was dead-on when I talked about the opponent- SCARBOROUGH: Of course- LEWIS: But that I was really wrong and overreached. There are a few blogs out about me today. I’ll just give you a couple headlines. One is called, ‘Civil discourse is overrated.’ One is called, Conservative blogger Matt Lewis ducks the fight.’ And one is called, ‘Matt Lewis proves he is a girl: g-u-r-l.’ [Scarborough laughs] So that will give you an idea. I think I’m starting to feel the Joe Scarborough love there. SCARBOROUGH Yeah. Well, here’s what I found that is so disappointing is that- it’s disappointing that all these symbolic issues- all these wedge issues take a backseat to the real issues- whether you’re going to stand up to balance the budget; whether you’re going to stand up to cut taxes; whether you’re going to stand up to show restraint in foreign policy- actual ideas don’t matter for a lot of these freaks. It is where you stand on these red-hot issues.

View original post here:
MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!'” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.”  Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.

Go here to see the original:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WaPo’s Frank Ahrens Suggests Krugman, Kudlow as Potential Romer Replacements

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Paul Krugman and Larry Kudlow – not exactly two guys you would associate with one another. However, they are two media figures Washington Post columnist Frank Ahrens thinks should be candidates for the same job. In his Aug. 15 column , Ahrens wrote about some of the people that should replace outgoing chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer. He named several candidates including Pepsi’s Indra Nooyi, James Sinegal, co-founder and chief executive of Costco, and Ford chief executive Alan Mulally. But he also named New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and CNBC’s “Kudlow Report” host Larry Kudlow . In his case for Krugman, Ahrens wondered that since Krugman can talk the talk, can he walk the walk as well. “Outside the academic world, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is best known for his New York Times columns arguing that the $787 billion, debt-busting stimulus bill was not enough, so even moderate Democrats — not to mention conservatives — might lose their minds with this pick. But maybe it’s time for Krugman to put his money where his mouth is,” Ahrens wrote. “You think government needs to spend more to get us out of this funk? Okay, Paul. Here’s the key to the car.”  In the case of Larry Kudlow, Ahrens wrote the CNBC host would be a wise choice because he can communicate economic policies clearly. “You might laugh at this one, but CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration before going to Wall Street to make his millions and subsequently flame out like a booze-and-drug-fueled Icarus, a low period he has discussed openly,” Ahrens wrote. “But Americans believe in second chances, and Kudlow’s been one-day-at-a-timing it for more than a decade. There is no more articulate spokesman for supply-side economics and tax-cut job creation. Yet, not even his legendary selection of suits and ties will likely win him admirers in the Obama White House.” Ahrens also appeared on CNBC’s “Street Signs” with Erin Burnett on Aug. 16 to argue for his suggestions, including making the case for Kudlow. Albeit unlikely, Ahrens says idea isn’t as crazy as one might think. “Larry Kudlow, great American,” Ahrens said. “I know you’re going to laugh or some of the viewers may laugh. But, look, the guy has been in this position before in previous administrations. He’s been on Wall Street. He knows about how to talk to folks in government. He knows about how the private markets work. And there’s no really more eloquent spokesman for supply-side job creation through tax cuts. Listen, you can know all you want about policy, but if you can’t explain yourself to the President, then that’s a real key thing, a real key element of this job. To get the President’s ear, you have to be able to explain yourself. It’s sort of fun, but it’s not as crazy as you might think.”

Continue reading here:
WaPo’s Frank Ahrens Suggests Krugman, Kudlow as Potential Romer Replacements

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Nightly News’ Skips Social Security’s 75th, Highlights Children’s Cartoon

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Children must be making the news programming decisions at NBC “Nightly News.” Aug. 14 was the 75 th anniversary of Social Security, the largest government program and most troubled. Social Security is in the red this year – six years ahead of forecasts. The program faces a $41 billion shortfall this year alone. The major anniversary of a program often nicknamed the “third-rail” of politics didn’t even rate a mention on NBC “Nightly News.” Instead, NBC celebrated an “iconic” children’s cartoon: Dora the Explorer. “If you’ve ever said the phrase: ‘Swiper, no swiping.’ then you know the power of the little girl who made that phrase famous.” Kate Snow enthusiastically teased. “Dora the Explorer will forever be a seven-year-old cartoon character, but this weekend marks the tenth anniversary of a ground-breaking show that has been almost inescapable for a generation of kids.” While, Dora the Explorer may be more important to preschoolers and kindergartners it probably doesn’t resonate as deeply with taxpayers as Social Security and its problems. ABC “World News” Saturday also failed to mention Social Security on Aug. 14, while CBS “Evening News” aired a story about the unemployed being “forced” to opt for early retirement (at 62) collecting lower Social Security benefits “permanently.” Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

More here:
‘Nightly News’ Skips Social Security’s 75th, Highlights Children’s Cartoon

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Joe Scarborough on Monday bashed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for saying the building of the Ground Zero mosque would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum. Scarborough was responding to the following from Sunday’s New York Times: Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” The next day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough let Gingrich have it: JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in ’94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there. I was a right-wing nut job and crazy this and crazy that. So far right and yet despite the fact 14 years later, 16 years later, I still have the same views on taxes. I still have the same views on small government. I still have the same views on military. I still have the same views everywhere. I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party and never more distant than this morning when I wake up to read what Newt Gingrich, a guy who’s leading in a lot of presidential preference polls across the country said this to say, had this to say about the First Amendment. “There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and accurate.” And then he went on to say “this would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Mark, I don’t know where to begin. To suggest that someone trying to build a, a tolerance center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me. To begin with, where does Scarborough get off claiming this is a “tolerance center for moderate Muslims?” The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is anything but moderate .   Beyond this, the Times piece included edited snippets from remarks made by Gingrich without letting readers know where and when the comments were made. What came before and after this excerpted sentence that Scarborough found so offensive? In a post-Shirley Sherrod world, shouldn’t commentators be careful about expressing an opinion about excerpted comments? Isn’t this especially true for a so-called conservative reading excerpts printed in the New York Times? For instance, Gingrich said the following on “Fox & Friends” this Monday morning providing a little more context to these twelve words: GINGRICH: This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.  Much less offensive in that context, correct? After all, Gingrich’s point Monday – and what the majority of Americans are expressing in polls about this subject – is that Ground Zero represents hallowed ground where thousands of our citizens were killed by radical Islamists. As such, allowing a radical Islamic Imam to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Gingrich’s view would be akin to us allowing the Japanese to put up a site near Pearl Harbor or Nazis putting up a sign near the Holocaust Museum. In that context, what Gingrich said is by no means as offensive as what Scarborough claimed, and he should know better than to assume the twelve words cited by the Times stood by themselves without anything before or after that could result in them being far less caustic.  When so-called conservatives begin bashing members of their own Party because of something written in the New York Times, their judgment is going to be questioned – and with good reason.  

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss President Obama showing support for a controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer agreed with the President’s sentiment but lamented the political fallout: “The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time.”   Schieffer began by outlining White House talking points on the issue to substitute co-host Erica Hill: “The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country.” Schieffer later added: “I would agree with the White House.” At the same time, both Hill and Schieffer fretted over the political fallout, particularly Republican criticism. Hill teased the segment at the top of show by declaring that Obama’s “apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling.” Schieffer remarked: “Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can.” Continuing to worry about the political impact of the President’s comments, Hill asked: “And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing?” Schieffer replied: “Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention.”    Earlier, Schieffer described the anxiety of Democratic candidates: “But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?'” He later added: “…a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.'” Here is a full transcript of the August 16 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE ERICA HILL: Political firestorm. President Obama launches a five-state political blitz today but his apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling. ED ROLLINS: First, Bob, it was probably the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag. 7:01AM ET SEGMENT ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get you to this. President Obama heading to Wisconsin this morning. The purpose of his trip, though, could end up taking a backseat to the controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the details. CHIP REID: The President heads out this morning on a three-day cross-country trip. He’ll be talking about the economy and raising money for fellow Democrats. The White House hopes this trip will help change the topic after a weekend of controversy over the President’s comments about building a mosque near Ground Zero. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; President’s Comments Could Derail Economic Message] The First Family spent a quick weekend on the Gulf coast of Florida, swimming, mini-golfing and boating. The visit was intended to highlight the fact that on most of the Gulf Coast, the water is clean and the beaches are open. But the President’s own comments over the weekend overshadowed the trip. Speaking at a White House dinner Friday celebrating Ramadan, the President waded into the already deepening political controversy over whether to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. BARACK OBAMA: Let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Saturday, the President seemed to back off from his initial comments, saying that while Muslims have the right to build the mosque, that doesn’t mean they should. OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. REID: White House officials insist the President is not backing down from his original statement, but some Republicans say the White House is trying to have it both ways. PETER KING [REP. R-NY]: The inference or the clear impression everyone came away with is that he was saying he was supporting the mosque at Ground Zero. And he can parse it later on, and sort of back away, but the fact is, that is clearly the impression, I believe, he wanted to leave. REID: The White House says the President has no regrets about his comments even though they turned a local issue into a national debate. Traveling with the President, Chip Reid, CBS News, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.          HILL: And joining us from Washington now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, always good to have you with us. BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Erica. HILL: We know and you know, of course, from talking about this on your show yesterday morning, the firestorm that these comments have ignited, and really, shots coming from both sides. So, why would the President, especially in this time when Democrats are really fighting to hold control of Congress in November, why make these comments at this point? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; Will Comments Impact Midterm Elections?] SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s just the question I asked White House officials and some people in the administration last night. The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country. But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?’ And clearly, Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can. Now, what White House officials say is, ‘look, this next election is going to be about the economy. It’s not going to be about whether they should build a mosque at Ground Zero.’ But a lot of – a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.’ The White House will say, ‘if you do the right thing, the politics will take care of itself.’ Clearly, there are some Democrats who are worried about that, though. HILL: They are a little worried. And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing? SCHIEFFER: Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention. What really bothers some Democrats, though, is that when the President gets into something like this, when he makes a statement like this, it elevates it to a national issue and every single Democratic candidate running for office is now going to be asked about it and will now have to take a position on something that they were hoping they would be able to say, ‘this is just a local issue. It’s up to the folks in New York to decide what to do about this.’ Yes, I would agree with the White House. The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time. HILL: Bob Schieffer, always good to have you here. Thanks. SCHIEFFER: Thanks, Erica.

Read more:
CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,